People v. Long

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Long

144 A.D.2d 1015, 535 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14572

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.D.2d 1015 (People v. Long) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Long, 144 A.D.2d 1015, 535 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues on appeal that the admission into evidence of his codefendant’s statement violated the rule in Bruton v United States (391 US 123). The codefendant’s statement was received without objection and thus the issue is not preserved for review (People v Russell, 71 NY2d 1016, 1017). While we decline to exercise our power to review in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), we note nevertheless that all references to defendant were redacted from the codefendant’s statement and if there was any error in receiving the statement, it was harmless (People v Hamlin, 71 NY2d 750). We have reviewed the other issues raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — manslaughter, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues on appeal that the admission into evidence of his codefendant’s statement violated the rule in Bruton v United States (391 US 123). The codefendant’s statement was received without objection and thus the issue is not preserved for review (People v Russell, 71 NY2d 1016, 1017). While we decline to exercise our power to review in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), we note nevertheless that all references to defendant were redacted from the codefendant’s statement and if there was any error in receiving the statement, it was harmless (People v Hamlin, 71 NY2d 750). We have reviewed the other issues raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — manslaughter, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 1015, 535 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-long-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack